The dream is social

Omkaradatta's picture



Average: 5 (1 vote)

The dream is a social one, and the people involved are all in your mind, not "out there". Not a single person exists as you imagine them to be. The common link between them all is You.

— Omkaradatta



Phroggy's picture

Jerk theory

"The common link between them all is You."

Is that why everybody I know is a jerk? Hehe.

Phroggy | Fri, 10/10/2008 - 07:31
Omkaradatta's picture

Hey...

We haven't met, so I'm just saying "hi" here... ;-)

P.S. as you probably know, the answer to the above is 'yes'... ego is a master at projection. Ultimately, 'otherness' itself is merely projected. It's an illusion.

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Fri, 10/10/2008 - 17:49
Phroggy's picture

Projection theory

Welp, I'm not so certain, really. Obviously, projection happens pretty reliably, but this individual does not create otherness. What it seems is that Consciousness is creating otherness, and the individual is projecting onto that otherness.

Now, there is the possibility that one individual comes empty to that relationship with other, and in this there is no projection. Projection is, by definition, unconscious.

Phroggy | Fri, 10/10/2008 - 17:57
Omkaradatta's picture

Hmmn...

"Welp, I'm not so certain, really. Obviously, projection happens pretty reliably, but this individual does not create otherness."

Suppose this individual "was" otherness? In other words, the sense of otherness creates the sense of 'me-ness', and vice-versa.

"What it seems is that Consciousness is creating otherness, and the individual is projecting onto that otherness."

Is the individual really apart from consciousness? Are things divided in truth, as they are verbally?

"Projection is, by definition, unconscious."

Yes, and full consciousness is fully lacking in otherness. I'm not saying that we don't interact with others, but that we don't feel they're apart, feel "they're a jerk and I'm not", and so on.

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Fri, 10/10/2008 - 18:18
Phroggy's picture

Context theory

"Suppose this individual "was" otherness? In other words, the sense of otherness creates the sense of 'me-ness', and vice-versa."

Of course the individual is not other than otherness. Again, that's a function of Consciousness as a whole, integrated expression, not the dynamics of the individual.

"Is the individual really apart from consciousness? Are things divided in truth, as they are verbally?"

Of course they are not divided in truth.
The individual has his uniqueness defined by the expression of individuality.

When we talk of otherness, we're referring to a function of Consciousness as a whole. When we talk about projection, we mean something related to an individual expression. The projection is not the creation of other. The creation of other is not a projection.

"Yes, and full consciousness is fully lacking in otherness. I'm not saying that we don't interact with others, but that we don't feel they're apart, feel "they're a jerk and I'm not", and so on."

Of course.

Phroggy | Sat, 10/11/2008 - 00:02
Omkaradatta's picture

I wish...

... you'd quit hinting at the notion that I should obey your contextual conventions. I'm just not bound by them, and your continually asking amounts to a pointless waste of bandwidth. You tend to base everything off an "individual entity" that isn't even there, and I'm neither willing nor able to think inside that box.

In any event, from here 'the individual' is none other than the mind, and it's clearly the mind that projects -- anything imaginary or illusory or false is in the mind. The sense of externality is very much projected, i.e. it's "right here" (as thought, as imagination) but the notion is that it's referring to something "out there".

"When we talk of otherness, we're referring to a function of Consciousness as a whole."

I'm not clear on what "Consciousness with a capital C" is supposed to be -- could you describe or define this thingie, so I know what it is you're referring to?

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Sat, 10/11/2008 - 18:32
Phroggy's picture

If wishes were horses...

"you'd quit hinting at the notion that I should obey your contextual conventions. I'm just not bound by them, and your continually asking amounts to a pointless waste of bandwidth."

I wish you'd quit hinting at the notion that I should obey your contextual dismissals. I'm just not bound by your refusal to discuss in the context in which the discussion happens.

If you're no longer able to think in contexts, that's fine. Really, there's no problem with it.

Phroggy | Sat, 10/11/2008 - 18:59
Omkaradatta's picture

In this case,

... your disagreement appears to be with a different use of the word "projection" than you're accustomed to -- apparently you require that it be used in context only of "the individual" or "the ego".

Discussions happen in context of two people, not one. I've never complained about your use of words, but you seem to dislike mine. If so, I invite you to ignore my replies. Or continue to complain, whichever you prefer.

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Sat, 10/11/2008 - 19:49